Still no evidence of anything impeachable.... maybe the evidence is in the prize egg at the egg hunt.

[homersapien 11,386]

On 3/23/2024 at 2:15 PM, AUFAN78 said:

That's not cherry-picking. The two terms have different meanings and are critical to the truth. What essential facts have I overlooked/ignored?

Please explain why.

I am curious about your perception of what the "truth" is.

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Eagerly awaiting for just ONE of those "bombshells" to explode and not turn out to be a dud.

This kind of reminds me of the O.J. trial.  Overwhelming evidence O.J. did it, but the jury didn’t care because there was an agenda to uphold.  The Dems don’t care to look into it because of the perp.  Now if you’re talking Trump, lets go.

[CoffeeTiger 5,121]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This kind of reminds me of the O.J. trial.  Overwhelming evidence O.J. did it, but the jury didn’t care because there was an agenda to uphold.  The Dems don’t care to look into it because of the perp.  Now if you’re talking Trump, lets go.

Except there isn't overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegal. 

 

I know YOU believe there is and that you blame Democrats for not letting the case move forward, but the reality is that even the House Republicans can't all agree that Biden did anything illegal or impeachment worthy. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

Except there isn't overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegal. 

 

I know YOU believe there is and that you blame Democrats for not letting the case move forward, but the reality is that even the House Republicans can't all agree that Biden did anything illegal or impeachment worthy. 

 

It’s not because he didn’t do anything wrong, it’s because the Republican house knows it isn’t going anywhere and politically it is dead.  They will still keep investigating and bring up anything they find to the public.  Although it will not matter as the truth eludes the left.

[CoffeeTiger 5,121]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not because he didn’t do anything wrong, it’s because the Republican house knows it isn’t going anywhere and politically it is dead.  They will still keep investigating and bring up anything they find to the public.  Although it will not matter as the truth eludes the left.

 

Right...because nothing worth impeachment has been found. That's why it's not going anywhere in the GOP controlled house and why it's politically dead. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

16 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Right...because nothing worth impeachment has been found. That's why it's not going anywhere in the GOP controlled house and why it's politically dead. 

 

No, there is evidence as shown by the committee, more than enough compared to Trump’s impeachment (either one), but waiting is the best course of action at this time.

[CoffeeTiger 5,121]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I bet this news will not be forthcoming at NPR anytime soon.

In a bombshell accusation, Joe Biden’s very own former stenographer unleashed a devastating critique of the president, alleging deep-seated corruption tied to a Ukrainian energy giant.

In a new publication, Mike McCormick, a former stenographer for Biden, presented a scathing indictment of the president’s involvement in criminal activities, specifically focusing on a purported kickback scheme with Ukrainian energy company Burisma. McCormick, who traveled globally with Biden, including trips to Ukraine, has released a book titled “The Case to Impeach and Imprison Joe Biden,” offering a comprehensive account to date of the allegations.

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/new-bidens-own-stenographer-calls-for-his-imprisonment-mace/?utm_source=proude&utm_medium=twitter#google_vignette

Of course, this really isn’t *evidence*; its news because he wants to sell his book, just like Biden stole the classified documents so he could write a book and make money.

Apparently this guy came out with this book and these "Bombshell allegations" late in 2023. 

Why is Right wing media just now picking it up and reporting on it 4 months later? I'd say it looks like him and his publisher are probably paying these right wing sites to "report" on it as advertisements, as it doesn't appear the book sold very well on it's own merits...

[AUFAN78 3,911]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Please explain why.

I am curious about your perception of what the "truth" is.

Are you seriously asking me to give you a definition of offered vs ordered? We have an entire thread on this matter with witness testimony. It wasn't complicated but rather didn't meet your preferred narrative. Hate it for you. 

Perception of truth?  My truth was in the facts. Unless you can disprove testimony from a half dozen witnesses, I'll stick with them.

[homersapien 11,386]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Are you seriously asking me to give you a definition of offered vs ordered? We have an entire thread on this matter with witness testimony. It wasn't complicated but rather didn't meet your preferred narrative. Hate it for you. 

 

No, I know the definition and the difference.  My question was related to why you think it's significant in this incident? 

In other words, what's your "narrative"?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 4/13/2024 at 2:28 PM, homersapien said:

No, I know the definition and the difference.  My question was related to why you think it's significant in this incident? 

In other words, what's your "narrative"?

You had officials, politicians, media, etc. repeating talking points that Trump never ordered troops. That was simply an effort to shield folks from accountability for security failures.

We have testimony from the J3 meeting where Trump offered the troops and was told by Miller, "We have it covered" which we now know was incorrect, but also sheds light on why the troops weren't ordered. The offer was turned down. 

The "narrative" is quite simple: 10,000 troops with riot gear and no "insurrection/riot" occurs on J6. Skirmishes and arrests happen with crowds of that size, but not remotely at the same level when adequate planning and security measures are in place.

I think it's important to note by the day's end J6 over 7500 troops had been ordered. 

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

@AUFAN78, here is a NG Captain that has testified recently.  No narrative here, but I’m sure this isn’t evidence either.

 

 

[AU9377 4,962]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:43 PM, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not because he didn’t do anything wrong, it’s because the Republican house knows it isn’t going anywhere and politically it is dead.  They will still keep investigating and bring up anything they find to the public.  Although it will not matter as the truth eludes the left.

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing.  That is the problem.  They literally started an investigation looking for a crime. There is no there there.

[AU9377 4,962]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

You had officials, politicians, media, etc. repeating talking points that Trump never ordered troops. That was simply an effort to shield folks from accountability for security failures.

We have testimony from the J3 meeting where Trump offered the troops and was told by Miller, "We have it covered" which we now know was incorrect, but also sheds light on why the troops weren't ordered. The offer was turned down. 

The "narrative" is quite simple: 10,000 troops with riot gear and no "insurrection/riot" occurs on J6. Skirmishes and arrests happen with crowds of that size, but not remotely at the same level when adequate planning and security measures are in place.

I think it's important to note by the day's end J6 over 7500 troops had been ordered. 

So it is the lack of security that forced these deranged fools to push their way into the building and thereby cause the certification of the election to be halted?

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

19 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So it is the lack of security that forced these deranged fools to push their way into the building and thereby cause the certification of the election to be halted?

It’s call a deterrent, something the left does not believe in as they want to defund the police.  In Denver they are defending the police to afford their Sanctuary City status.

It is a proactive act to deter any wrong doing.  It works.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

So it is the lack of security that forced these deranged fools to push their way into the building and thereby cause the certification of the election to be halted?

I am not aware of anyone being forced into the capitol on J6. Bad choices were made, some worse than others, and those found guilty were or will be punished.

The point should have been clear, but I'll reiterate. 10,000 troops in riot gear could have prevented the Capitol breach.  

[AU9377 4,962]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s call a deterrent, something the left does not believe in as they want to defund the police.  In Denver they are defending the police to afford their Sanctuary City status.

It is a proactive act to deter any wrong doing.  It works.

You know full well that only a fringe of the fringe actually supports defunding.  I am very confident that if that same fringe were the guilty parties storming the halls of Congress, that you would be demanding they be put to death or something along those lines.

[AU9377 4,962]

34 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I am not aware of anyone being forced into the capitol on J6. Bad choices were made, some worse than others, and those found guilty were or will be punished.

The point should have been clear, but I'll reiterate. 10,000 troops in riot gear could have prevented the Capitol breach.  

Can you remind me of one other point in time when 10,000 troops in riot gear were needed on the day an election was being certified?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Can you remind me of one other point in time when 10,000 troops in riot gear were needed on the day an election was being certified?

Irrelevant. We knew there would be large crowds, which is unusual for this event, and more importantly, had intelligence indicating problematic activity. 

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

22 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You know full well that only a fringe of the fringe actually supports defunding. 

Here is 8 minutes of the fringe of the fringe.

 

 

24 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I am very confident that if that same fringe were the guilty parties storming the halls of Congress, that you would be demanding they be put to death or something along those lines.

Not really, they would not be a real threat.

 

[auburnatl1 4,955]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not really, they would not be a real threat.

 

Ah, so translating: there may have been thousands of maga guys, some armed, and intent on taking the capital. But because none of them had IQs greater than a chipmunk. they can’t be seen as a  threat…

Interesting defense.

Edited April 19 by auburnatl1

[creed 1,640]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Irrelevant. We knew there would be large crowds, which is unusual for this event, and more importantly, had intelligence indicating problematic activity. 

What is the reason for large crowds at this event?

Edited April 20 by creed

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ah, so translating: there may have been thousands of maga guys, some armed, and intent on taking the capital. But because none of them had IQs greater than a chipmunk. they can’t be seen as a  threat…

Interesting defense.

Where are you getting this?  I interpreted him as saying if the fringe leftist that wanted to defund the police stormed the capitol, they would not be a real threat just the J6ers were not much of a real threat

[DKW 86 7,426]

Quote

Still no evidence of anything impeachable....

It didn't stop two impeachments that had ZERO chance of doing anything before...still proceeding and inevitably doing nothing. 

Edited April 20 by DKW 86

[aubiefifty 16,805]

21 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You had officials, politicians, media, etc. repeating talking points that Trump never ordered troops. That was simply an effort to shield folks from accountability for security failures.

We have testimony from the J3 meeting where Trump offered the troops and was told by Miller, "We have it covered" which we now know was incorrect, but also sheds light on why the troops weren't ordered. The offer was turned down. 

The "narrative" is quite simple: 10,000 troops with riot gear and no "insurrection/riot" occurs on J6. Skirmishes and arrests happen with crowds of that size, but not remotely at the same level when adequate planning and security measures are in place.

I think it's important to note by the day's end J6 over 7500 troops had been ordered. 

you have lost your mind dude.........if you ever had one. the same mob wanted to hang nancy and pence. keep taking up for thugs. god help us if it was black lives matter or antifa because you idiots would change the narrative. the right has absolutely no honor.

[homersapien 11,386]

On 4/19/2024 at 4:50 PM, AUFAN78 said:

The point should have been clear, but I'll reiterate. 10,000 troops in riot gear could have prevented the Capitol breach.  

Well, duuuuuuh!

And if Trump had not created the conditions in the first place it wouldn't have happened.

And if Trump had tried to get them  to stop instead of passively watching, they might have stopped. (My personal theory on that is that his ego was just too enthralled because they were rioting on his behalf.)

And if Trump ordered troops, why didn't he ensure it was done?  

Edited April 20 by homersapien